J.U. v. J.C.P.C.
176 A.3d 136
| D.C. | 2018Background
- Minor C.J.P.U., born in El Salvador (2000), entered the U.S. in 2015 as an unaccompanied minor to join his mother, J.U., who has lived in the U.S. since 2005.
- Mother petitioned the D.C. Superior Court for custody and a predicate juvenile-court SIJ (Special Immigrant Juvenile) finding that reunification with the father in El Salvador was not viable due to abandonment.
- Father filed a consent answer admitting the allegations and agreeing with sworn statements but did not present contrary testimony or evidence; trial court found mother sole legal and physical custodian.
- Trial court found most SIJ prerequisites met (age, custody placement, return not in minor’s best interest) but denied the required finding that reunification with the father was not viable due to abandonment.
- Court of Appeals held the trial court applied too demanding a standard; on the record—father’s long-term lack of day-to-day care, financial support, or parental relationship—reunification with father in El Salvador is not viable due to abandonment and remanded for an amended order granting the SIJ-related finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court must find reunification with father not viable due to abandonment for SIJ predicate | Mother: record shows father abandoned child—no daily care, financial support, or ongoing relationship—so reunification is not viable | Father: (through consent) disputed degree of abandonment; trial court found father showed periodic concern and was not neglectful | Court: Reunification with father is not viable; father’s lifelong lack of parental role constitutes abandonment for SIJ purpose |
| Standard for "viable reunification" and "abandonment" under SIJ predicate inquiries | Mother: viability should be practical, fact-specific; historical parental conduct controls | Trial court: required more affirmative neglect or egregious conduct; discredited some testimony | Court: viability is a common-sense, practicability inquiry tied to history; lower court applied too demanding a standard |
| Whether juvenile court's SIJ findings are binding on USCIS | Mother: juvenile findings needed to enable federal SIJ petition | Father/Trial court: (implicitly) juvenile court should be cautious absent adverse evidence | Court: juvenile findings are necessary but not dispositive; USCIS retains ultimate authority to consent and determine bona fides |
| Proper remedy when trial court denies SIJ-related finding despite record admissions | Mother: remand to enter requisite SIJ finding | Trial court: declined to reconsider based on appeal jurisdictional bar to Rule 60(b) motion | Court: Vacated trial-court order and remanded to enter amended order including finding that reunification with father is not viable due to abandonment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Israel O., 233 Cal.App.4th 279 (Cal. Ct. App.) (statutory "one or both" parent language permits eligibility while living with non-abusive parent)
- In re Marcelina M.-G. v. Israel S., 112 A.D.3d 100 (N.Y. App. Div.) ("one or both" language means child need not be separated from both parents for SIJ eligibility)
- In re Je.A., 793 A.2d 447 (D.C. 2002) (abandonment where parent made no effort to assume parental responsibilities)
- Petition of C.E.H., 391 A.2d 1370 (D.C. 1978) (abandonment can support termination when parent fails to provide basic care)
- In re C.G.H., 75 A.3d 166 (D.C. 2013) (D.C. published decision addressing SIJ statute provisions)
- In re Erick M., 284 Neb. 340 (Neb. 2012) (addressing interpretation of the "one or both" parent language)